0

I used .asc for ASCII armored (using --armor) encrypted messages.

But what extension should I use when encrypting file.tar.gz for example?

  • why would it matter what extension you give it? – yeah_well Jul 24 at 11:25
  • 1
    @VipulNair It doesn’t, but I would like to use the extension that people expect for this type of file. – sunknudsen Jul 24 at 11:52
2

.asc is appropriate for all ASCII-armored output, even if the input file was in a binary format. Traditionally the original filename will be maintained so that the recipient knows what to expect once they've decrypted the file, e.g., file.tar.gz.asc.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Yep, typically .asc for ASCII armored output & .gpg for binary output to be complete. – Esa Jokinen Jul 24 at 13:53
  • gowenfawr, do you agree with @EsaJokinen? – sunknudsen Jul 24 at 14:22
  • 1
    @sunknudsen I agree that .gpg or .pgp are the most common options for non-ASCII-armored GnuPG encrypted files, with .bin being a rarer but still present choice for some people. Interestingly the choice of .gpg or .pgp may not have anything to do with whether the user is using GnuPG or PGP. There's just less consensus for binary files than ASCII-armored files. – gowenfawr Jul 24 at 15:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.